Disposed

P a Shajahan v. Transport Commissioner

Kerala HC24 Mar 2023WP(C)/939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, auction winner of a stage carriage, alleges RC blacklisting prevented ownership transfer. Court directed RTO to consider his application within six weeks, dispensing notice to other respondents but instructing notice to violators if required.

What did the court decide?

Directed RTO to consider petitioner's application for transfer of ownership and pass orders within six weeks.

P a Shajahan Vs Transport Commissioner — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945

¶3

WP(C) NO. 939 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

PASHAJAHAN

¶6

AGED65YEARS
S/OABDULKHADERROWTHAR,R/ATPARAKKAL(H)PC,
KAVALAPO,PAYIPAD,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686537

¶7

BYADVS.
ARUNP.ANTONY
N.V.VINAY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, 2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶10

2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RTO, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

¶11

3 SAKTHI FINANCE LTD

¶12

NO 62, DR. NANJAPPAA ROAD, COIMBATORE-641018 AND ALSO HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT KOTTAYAM

¶13

4 SOBIN MATHEW

¶14

S/O MATHEW, PULIYURUMPIL HOUSE, ELAMPALLY.P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503

¶15

5 JIBY SOBIN

¶16

W/O SOBIN MATHEW PULIYURUMPIL HOUSE, ELAMPALLY.P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503

¶17

W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023

¶18

¶19

SMTAMMINIKUTTYSRGOVERNMENTPLEADER
SRIEMMURUGAN,SC

¶20

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON24.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that in the auction conducted by the 3rd respondent in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 05 AN-7601, the petitioner became the successful bidder. His grievance concerns the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering the request of the petitioner for transfer of ownership of the vehicle. The petitioner contends that the previous owner, certain Sobin Mathew, had approached this Court and had filed Writ Petition as W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022, and this Court, by Ext.P4 judgment, had directed the 2nd respondent to hear the version of Sri. Sobin Mathew before taking a decision on the application.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has preferred Ext.P6 application before the 2nd respondent seeking transfer of ownership and requests that the said application be ordered to be considered. According to the learned counsel, in the downloaded copy of the RC status, it is mentioned that the vehicle has been blacklisted in

¶26

W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023

¶27

¶28

view of the judgment rendered by this Court. The learned counsel points out that the Court had not ordered the blacklisting of the vehicle.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader submits that if an objection

¶30

is received from any quarters, the vehicle would be blacklisted in the Parivahan portal. The learned Government Pleader submits that in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P6 application can also be considered.

¶31

In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass,

¶32

notice to respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with notice to respondents 3 to 5. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶36

IAP

¶37

W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 939/2023

¶40

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:

¶41

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFQUOTATIONFORPURCHASEDATED
28/09/2022
ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFNOTICEDATED30/07/2022
ExhibitP3ATRUECOPYOFTHERECEIPTISSUEDBYTHE
3RDRESPONDENTDATED26/11/2022
ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED28/10/2022IN
WP(C)NO.34477/2022
ExhibitP5ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTDETAILSSHOWN
INTHESAIDWEBSITE
ExhibitP6THETRUECOPYOFREPRESENTATIONDATED
25.01.2023

P a Shajahan v. Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P a Shajahan v. Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharukh Sharaf Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Federal Bank Employees Union

Rajan v T, Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Ponnamma Devasia Vs the District Collector

O.A. Abbaskhan, Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Devaki.K.v Vs the Secretary